Why does PerlMonks permit multiple visitors with the same username, Anonymous Monk, to post here? What purpose does a sophisticated voting system serve when so many "members of the community" post messages to PerlMonks using the same anonymous username?

To me, total anonymity—or, more precisely, shared, ambiguous and amorphous identity—doesn't jibe with the monastic ethos.

UPDATE: Ugh! I'm already being down-voted for having asked this earnest question. Please don't do that. PerlMonks Discussion should be the place on PerlMonks where one can ask questions and express opinions about the community openly and without fear of being silently down-voted into submission to a hegemony.

To me, the existence of Anonymous Monk is important to lower the barrier of entry to the Monastery.

If I have something to contribute to a discussion, I don't want to have to register, wait for a confirmation email, click a link and set up a profile. By that time, I likely already have forgotten my train of thought. Being able to directly respond to a discussion is important - if I find a discussion good, and maybe find more discussions on the same site, then maybe I'll sign up. But that comes after participating, not before.

Seconded. It took me several years to go from Anonymous Monk to Anonyrnous Monk :) — and that was primarily motivated by minor benefits like custom CSS, being able to update your nodes, etc.

In case you wonder why... it's that I think that in places like PM, what is being said generally is (or ought to be) more important than who says it. Of course, there are also instances when you'd want to have some "authority" info - in the sense that what a PM Pope or other long term member says is more likely to be correct than what someone without a traceable history says (in particular if truth is hard to verify independently) - but those instances are rather rare, IMHO.

(Actually, I once had an account here, but I switched back to posting anonymously, because I'm susceptible to such silly games, and as a result I found myself spending more time here than what is good for me. In the hopes of having matured a little in the meantime, I gave it another try... ;)

Would it be beneficial then to create a mechanism similar to some news sites where a new user can simply post by signing their name and adding an email address? The post can go up without confirmation but a friendly email will still be sent inviting them to join.

It could even be made an option: "Would you like to sign your post" OR "Post Anonymously"

"...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote

I don't find having an anonymous monk at all inconsistent with the ethos. In my view the supreme ethos here is learning. I'd rather have someone ask a question anonymously than not ask it at all. I'd rather see a good answer that teaches me something, even if it from an anonymous source, than not have it at all.

I also have a completely unconfirmed hunch that certain people with "well known names" from time to time post anonymously because they want their words to be evaluated for their own merits and do not want to quelch honest discussion or debate. Unfortunately if someone has too much of a reputation and they speak up the natural inclination of many is to keep their disagreements to themselves. Encouraging discussion rather than silence also fits into the ethos of learning.

However, I do think we need to look carefully at frequency and nature of anonymous posts. I'm not referring here to anonymous trollers. Those are easy enough to find and reap.

Rather I'm referring to good posts that seem to be anonymous for some reason other than "I just don't want my name known". For instance, posts that are anonymous because someone doesn't want to be downvoted for expressing a contrary view or for not being sure how to find information on the web or RTFM (read the f--king manual). That would signal that the monastery is _not_ as safe a place for learning as it could be. Learning requires a space where people feel safe about being dumb. Bringing new people into a community requires people being able to ask about and even challenge cultural norms without fear of rejection.

It wouldn't be entirely bad, in my opinion, to add a question to the posting form that gave people an (optional) chance to state why they chose to post anonymously. I'm fine with "I just wanna". I'd like to know, for instance, what percentage of anonymous posts are coming from people with (a) an inability to get back into their old account due to a password change/out of date email (b) fears dating back to a security breach about a year and a half ago (c) not wanting to be downvoted for seeming dumb, or some other fill-in-the-blank reason. We could use the data or not, but without the data, we're just guessing based on gestalt and intuition about anonymous posting trends.

We're all perfectly anonymous here, right? I'm Jim. And that, by the way, is my real name—the name my mother calls me. But you don't know which of millions of Jims I am. I'm otherwise perfectly anonymous. If I say to you, "Your mother wears army boots!", you can't empty my bank account or sever a limb to punish me for insulting your mom, can you? (BTW, your mom's a doll, ELISHEVA. Just in case you can empty my bank account or sever a limb for insulting your dear mother!)

I have a confession to make. I'm practically every user on PerlMonks! PerlMonks is almost entirely one guy...me! Every post attributed to "Anonymous Monk" is mine! And all those other whacky usernames...mine! All mine!

I hope the fact that every response you get to anything you post on PerlMonks is coming from one amorphous respondent named "Anonymous Monk" that is actually is me, a mediocre Perl programmer, is not a problem for you. I try to be really right.

My only gripe with "Anonymous Monk" is that I don't know which of arbitrarily many "Anonymous Monk"s I'm conversing with when I post something on PerlMonks. That's really all there is to my question about why the decision was made by whoever runs things here to let everyone be one, amorphous, indistinct Anonymous Monk on PerlMonks.

My only gripe with "Anonymous Monk" is that I don't know which of arbitrarily many "Anonymous Monk"s I'm conversing with when I post something on PerlMonks.

Silly me... I thought that was the whole point of anonymity.

Sometimes a poster wants others to judge a post purely on its own merits and not on who is posting. That's one use for Anonymous Monk. They may not want to be voted down for a controversial point of view. They may not want to be voted up for something they know will be popular but for which they don't feel they deserve a lot of credit.

Sometimes a member who is logged in takes a controversial stand. An Anonymous Monk may not want to appear to be attacking or supporting that other monk to whom they are replying just out of personal feelings about that other monk.

Sometimes a visitor to the site wants to ask a question and get a response without signing up as a member. Perhaps he or she doesn't want the (quite small) hassle of signing up and remembering yet another password. I'd recommend a password wallet if remembering the password is the problem. Perhaps they aren't real sure who gets the information they would enter to register. Sometimes a person thinks they may never be back to a site after the one time they use it. I know I often find comment sections on other sites in which I'd comment if I didn't have to register as a member and give my email address out to some organization with which I'm unfamiliar just to comment the one time. The point in this case isn't to be anonymous but to leave your node on the site without having to meet the requirements of membership.

The reputation of a node stands even if no XP is gained or lost by a member. You can vote a node up or down based on what it says, and people will be able to see the votes later. XP is a factor of a number of things, but a single node's reputation, especially when posted anonymously, is a pretty clear indication of what the voting membership thinks of the node. If you're voting to reward or punish members through XP, you're hurting the discussion system. Please vote on the merit of the nodes to which your votes are attached.

I think this is a great question. It is important from time to time to rethink or re-remember the reasons behind long standing decisions. This is also an opportunity for those with a long memory of the history of the site to help some of us newer ones learn about what that "ethos" is. In your case, Jim, I notice that in the last three months there has been a dramatic up-tic in your involvement here. Despite being a member since 2006, over half your nodes are in the last three months. So, Welcome!

A lot has changed in the social use of the internet in the last six years and it doesn't appear that we've had a serious discussion about this for a while, or not at least one that is easily findable via super-search.

The only result super search found containing the three words "anonymous", "monk", and "ethos", is this very thread. The phrase "Should users be allowed to post anonymously" turned up just one post from 2005. The last serious discussion of Anonymonk privileges in the list given above is in 2006. There is a whole generation of potential Perl learners entering college who lived their entire teen years (crucial to cultural formation) since then. Surely, we want to hear their voices and have PerlMonks to be open to new ways of thinking that have resulted from growing up in the era of social media? It just won't happen unless someone asks the question and starts a discussion.

UPDATE: Ugh! I'm already being down-voted for having asked this earnest question. Please don't do that. PerlMonks Discussion should be the place on Perl where one can ask questions and express opinions about the community openly and without fear of being silently down-voted into submission to a hegemony.

I can't vote and can't say for the voters, but here are a few quirks with your posting

Other forums which allow anonymous postings sometimes have the possibility to enter a guest name. I like that because it makes discussions easier to follow, even in tree structures.

Of course, this has the disadvantage that you can enter any guest name, but guests are clearly distinguishable from signed in users, so that's not a big problem.

At perl-community.de for example, where I am a moderator, I see the typical process: someone asks a question as a guest, and in many cases when they get answers then they decide to sign in to join the discussion as a regular user. Or they sign in when they realize they have another question a week later. So I think guest postings encourage users to post a question. I myself don't like it if I have to sign in to a forum where I have no idea if I'll get an answer at all. There are already too many websites that have my email (and often my unencrypted password, too).

The most common reason against guest postings I hear from people is that you have no control, and people can post spam. But if moderators/experienced users have to approve guest postings this reason goes away.

Peter (Guo) Pei

I certainly accept the fundamental principle that different people like different things. That's not the gist of my inquiry. My question is an earnest and specific one about the rationale of the administrators of PerlMonks: Why did they implement a generic user named Anonymous Monk?

I'm asking the question because it seems incongruous to me. OK, I guess this means I'm also expressing a point of view, but I'm nonetheless asking a sincere question for the genuine purpose of knowing the answer. I'm not trolling.

Why does PerlMonks permit multiple visitors with the same username, Anonymous Monk, to post here? What purpose does a sophisticated voting system serve when so many "members of the community" post messages to PerlMonks using the same anonymous username?

To me, total anonymity—or, more precisely, shared, ambiguous and amorphous identity—doesn't jibe with the monastic ethos . . .

I agree with Jim and ELISHEV, and I think this question is more relevant than what others think!

Why not let all registered monks vote on the question?

But only 1 vote from 1 registered monk, or to give the current hierarchy their just due, the monks level is counted as number of votes. ( So a Pope's vote counts as 28, etc. ).
But only 1 positive/negative post per monk should count (first/last?)

Let me just say the tone of many posts are changed by comments from the 'Anonymous Monk'.

I have learned a lot from registered monks, since they usually spend the time/energy to make sure what they say/code works and is relevant to the topic. I can't say that about the 'Anonymous Monk' comment.

Why not. Do you really think the site improves if every Anonymous Monk post has JimDDDD (with DDDD the node-id) as an author instead?

To me, total anonymity—or, more precisely, shared, ambiguous and amorphous identity—doesn't jibe with the monastic ethos.

Right. It's so much better if everyone on this planet can pick any name they want, as many times as they want. Then we all know instantly who everyone is. "Jim" can only be one person.

The old saying goes "On the Internet, noone knows you are a dog". That doesn't go away if you're forcing dogs to pick nicknames.

What purpose does a sophisticated voting system

Sophisticated voting system? Where? There's a voting system here, but I wouldn't call that sophisticated. And isn't the official standpoint that XP is a game?

Besides, Anonymous Monks don't get to vote. If you're forcing people to use throw away accounts, they'll get votes. So they can vote on posts make with their previous throw away account. Really think that's a good idea?

I've no problem with anonymous monks. But you're free to not read their posts (and specially, to not answer them). If this were usenet, your reader could automatically filter out posts made by people you don't want to read (except that usenet doesn't have a marked anonymous user).

Why not. Do you really think the site improves if every Anonymous
Monk post has JimDDDD (with DDDD the node-id) as an author instead?

Actually no one has suggested doing that. My hunch is most of us are
adults here and can come up with good solutions to the issue.

Right. It's so much better if everyone on this planet can pick any
name they want, as many times as they want. Then we all know instantly
who everyone is. "Jim" can only be one person.

Who says that can't be done now.

You're JavaFan. That's ALL I know about you. For all I know you could
also be Jim, having a great time playing games with all the Monks by
posting a 'hot button' issue under one user name then coming in a day
later completely against it under another name. That option wouldn't
change if you were Anonymous Monk, Jim or Guest198.

Sophisticated voting system? Where? There's a voting system here,
but I wouldn't call that sophisticated. And isn't the official
standpoint that XP is a game?

You seem to enjoy it. You should. Why not? It's fun and keeps people
more engaged. But don't come out and poo poo it for cheap votes. (again
because deep down you really like them :) )

Besides, Anonymous Monks don't get to vote. If you're forcing people
to use throw away accounts, they'll get votes. So they can vote on posts
make with their previous throw away account. Really think that's a good
idea?

Again, no one has suggested doing that. There have been several ideas
proposed and would imagine other Monks have more to share. Blowing it
off like this isn't really constructive.

I've no problem with anonymous monks. But you're free to not read
their posts (and specially, to not answer them). If this were usenet,
your reader could automatically filter out posts made by people you
don't want to read (except that usenet doesn't have a marked anonymous
user).

You realize this is a big part of the OP's whole point — right?
Anonymous Monk can't be filtered out and many times becomes a major part
of a thread (let alone the originator).

I've never really liked the idea of Anonymous Monk since I joined the site. It's probably what I like least about the site. As you suggest, I rarely, if ever, answer and/or vote on posts by Anonymous Monk. I would imagine their are a few others who have similar practices.

I understand some of the previously stated reasons given for having Anonymous Monk:

Someone has a question they'd rather not ask under their user name in order to avoid possible riddicule.

Someone is well known in the community and would rather have a post stand on it's own merits.

Creates a low barrier to entry on the site.

However, at least in the short time I've been here, I feel it's often
used as a cover to say something — "less positive" — that a user
wouldn't say under thier signed name.

I know we probably wont get rid of Anonymous Monk altogether but it
would be great if we could address some of the issues I think a number
of us have with it.

"...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote

Actually no one has suggested doing that. My hunch is most of us are adults here and can come up with good solutions to the issue.

Wait. Either one is an "anonymous monk", or one uses some picked name. Assuming that people posting anonymously because they don't want to use a name that links them to other posts. If one needs a name to post, but one doesn't want to said name to be linked - people can easily use throw away names. And that can trivially be automated. For instance, by using a prefix and the node ID as a suffix.

Of course noone suggested that. But that's not the point. Apparently, the OP thinks the site can be improved if there's no anonymous monk. I describe a situation where there's 1) no anonymous monks, and 2) people who have reasons to post anonymously still do so. I'm just asking how that's going to improve things.

You're JavaFan. That's ALL I know about you. For all I know you could also be Jim, having a great time playing games with all the Monks by posting a 'hot button' issue under one user name then coming in a day later completely against it under another name. That option wouldn't change if you were Anonymous Monk, Jim or Guest198.

Yes. I'm glad we agree. For me, that's an argument that having or not having an option to post anonymously doesn't change things in general (except for the mechanics of the poster).

You realize this is a big part of the OP's whole point — right? Anonymous Monk can't be filtered out and many times becomes a major part of a thread (let alone the originator).

And my point is, the content of such posts will not change if there's a name above the post. If you get annoyed by a post, does it really matter if the top of the post is "Anonymous Monk", or "Jim882693" - a name that may not top any other node?

[About voting] You seem to enjoy it. You should.

I don't. I don't vote often. If I want a game where mindless clicking results in some numbers increasing, I'd play Farmville.

It's all great to say "I don't like anonymous monks", but I haven't seen a single posts that shows that whatever anonymous monks do to anger them will not happen if there are names (which can be as anonymous as the user of that name wants it to be) above the posts. However, if the post is made by "anonymous monk", I know it's done anonymously. But if the post is done by "Foo1234", and I go through the trouble of going to his userpage, and find he just signed up, and has no other writings, what do I know? Is it someone wanting to post anonymously, or just the first post on a fast track to sainthood?

Personally, it doesn't bother me. When I first arrived I found it a little confusing to have several seemingly different AMs posting in the same thread. I don't find that to be so much of a problem these days.

I like the fact that people don't have to create an account, it lowers the bar for entry. If people have a positive experience when using the site they may end up staying and creating an account. If they don't register an account, who cares? For all I know they may keep coming back as AM.

I think BrowserUK put's it well in (part of) their signature: "Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.". I'd be just as happy with you explaining something I've done wrong or offering to help than I would with AM doing the same. Of course this is only my opinion, I've seen occasions were others have refused to help someone because they were posting as AM.

Don't put too much stock in voting systems. People often vote for the wrong reasons. IIRC this has been discussed several times before.

Names aren't as important in monasteries as you seem to think they are.

If there was not a hierarchy in the monastery, then this statement would be correct.

But it exists, and it's a way for a poster to understand the authenticity and legitimacy of the comments.

When I see certain names on posts, I immediately check out the thread, since I will most likely learn something or get more information about perl. When I see 'Anonymous Monk', I usually skip over the comments. Why waste time on someone who isn't proud enough of his post/work/comments to stand behind it. Many times, I have wasted time on code from 'Anonymous Monk' which doesn't compile or just doesn't work correctly.

Personally, I don't consider this a game, I consider this a very interesting and creative way to improve my perl skills. I'm too math oriented, so I know that I would never have been creative enough to develop www.perlmonks.org, but I do enjoy using the site to grow my perl skills.

You say you judge the quality of the words by the speaker, because you learn better that way. However highly ranked people, including myself, claim that we pay more attention to what is said than who is saying it. In fact I learned something useful from Anonymous Monk today.

Why do you refuse to learn from stated examples from people you claim to try to be learning from?

But it exists, and it's a way for a poster to understand the authenticity and legitimacy of the comments.

I understand that.

And I claim that "anonymous monk" isn't your problem. It seems you only want to read comments from people who already "have made a name". First time posters, or anyone who hasn't posted enough so their names sticks in your memory have as much authenticity and legitimacy as anonymous monks.

Which actually seem to make you a newbie basher.

And guess what. *Anyone* here, even people with thousands of posts started off as someone with no track record.

If you want to improve your perl skills, judge posts by content. Because even people with well known names, and thousands of posts do from time to time post crap. (Even those who in general post sensible things). And there have been some excellent Anonymous Monk posts.

There's one thing though. There are some people who posts a lot that still manage the time to make long rambling posts. Anonymous Monk usually keeps his posts short.

Also, forcing people to slap names on their posts doesn't create authenticity or legitimacy. Only if you can force them to come back repeatedly, and keep using said name, you have a chance they make a name for themselves. But if they post anonymously because they want to be anonymous, then can use a different name each and every time.

You seems to assume that monks with a "name" build here are bound to give good answers, nothing wrong with that, actually chances are you are right most of the times.

The thing is, you can't apply this same line of thought to the Anonymous Monk(s), for the exactly reason that anyone can post at any time, on any thread, you can't assume the node will be bad, nor that it will be good, chances will be against you anyway. The better you can do is, leave the chances aside, and evaluate the node yourself, bonus points if you manage to read the node as if it was written by "certain names".

Shame on you for voting me down, Argel! You admit you did it because you disagree with my point of view. Such punitive voting against ideas rather than for a misdeed or an offense does not comport with either the monastic ethos or the principles of civil discourse.

Did I silently downvote you? No. I honored your request -- I stated that I downvoted you. I even did more than you asked by stating why.

Such punitive voting against ideas rather than for a misdeed....

Complaining about being downvoted is often considered a misdeed here, so by your own standards, you qualify for being downvoted!

Regardless, if I think something is a bad idea why shouldn't I vote it down? Enlightenment is attained by learning from and then discarding bad ideas (among other things), and voting on nodes helps establish if something is a good idea or not. It's just like taking an informal survey: "Is this idea good or bad?".

And as a side note, if you are going to suggest a radical change like yours you should really put a lot more effort into the post. A lengthy, well thought out essay about it may have gone over much better and many people who did not like the idea may have still upvoted it and then discussed the problems with it. Throwing out such ideas so haphazardly as you did (another misdeed) is practically guaranteed to get you a lot of downvotes.

As a side note, I commend you for continuing to post as yourself and taking the downvote hit.

Such punitive voting against ideas rather than for a misdeed or an offense does not comport with either the monastic ethos or the principles of civil discourse.

So, if you think people shouldn't downvote because they don't agree with the idea, and should only downvote on misdeeds or offenses, do you also agree people shouldn't upvote your post if they agree with your idea, and only upvote on real acts of goodness?

Why is it that if people complain about votes, it's always about downvotes -- noone seems to complain they got more upvotes than they should have gotten.

He's expressing his feelings. Doesn't he have a right to do that? I don't think anything constructive comes from censoring someone for saying that they are hurt or upset. I actually think it is very wrong and it makes me angry. But I won't down vote you in return, because you have a right to your opinions and I, as a matter of policy, do not downvote people for disagreeing with me.

If we can't express our feelings in safety what sort of community do we have? Voting may be a game, but it is a game that sometimes hurts people, especially when they have asked questions in good faith. Browsing through the archives for the many years of this site, I've seen post after post where people have written about real pain that comes from down votes.

If the down-voting action really had no meaning at all, why do it? If it does have a meaning, then I think we need to take care and consider what social signals we are sending.

I'm not saying we shouldn't downvote because it might hurt someone. Sometimes, down voting, even mass downvoting, enforces a very important and constructive social norm, e.g. don't plagiarize, don't puff up your CPAN module by self-reviewing it. The pain is the necessary if sad price for those important social norms.

Personally, I think by downvoting him for complaining you are enforcing a destructive social norm: "shut up, don't have feelings, don't react". A person who is told that message often enough will just walk away and leave. Is that what you want?

We want people to react to downvotes, at least to the right kinds. Otherwise they have no value for shaping behavior.

Expressing a thought or an opinion is fine. Desirable even, but when you post in the Monastery, you should be prepared to get answers from people that agree, and from people that (violently) disagree.

I tend to up-vote posts that

Add to the discussion (in the widest range, both technical and social)

Make me think

Make me want to post a reply (even if I eventually don't because the answer I wanted to post was already given or my answer would be inappropriate)

I tend to down-vote posts that

Add nothing whatsoever to a discussion

Reply with no useful info to threads older than 6 months

Are just complaints (and do not make me think or laugh like posts to hates-software)

I never down-vote Anonymous Monk. It's useless. I sometimes up-vote Anonymous Monk if the answer is extremely to-the-point and correct. I rather use my votes for named monks, but I think Anonymous Monk should stay!